If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

First flaw of SRT - Einstein's motivation axle

First flaw of SRT - Einstein's motivation axle

The theory of special relativity had been began by accepting Maxwell's definition about light's propagation, but its analysis was ended by verifing FitzGerald contraction. Asknown, FitzGerald contraction is a prophecy to revive/retain aether concept/claim and it has not any evidence. It is an ad-hoc hypothesis.

In Einstein's time, young scientists were saying that a person (who can generate an experimental evidence for Fitzgerald contraction) will get Nobel prize. In my opinion this phrase was Einstein's motivation axle; Einstein's aim was not to improve "Light Kinematics". He had has passion mystic/romantic in science area; he was looking for new amazing compass events.

However I generated an experimental evidence that can confuted/veto the contraction:

If length contraction is real, the electrical resistance value of a conductive cable must be changed in accordance with its different directions because of its universal motion. Our electrical resistance based experiment did not indicate an evidence for the length contraction; all measured values are isotropic and same.

Einstein had used inconvenient parameters (that have not equivalent) in formulas of SR. because the parameter ' v ' is a local value of the "moving body" according to Earth or rails; and the 'c' is a universal value * (according to macro reference system : Space or LCS). The parameters have not scientific integrity.

Human mind generally prefers easiness and short ways; it has ability of complementariness (*). For example, he/she measures the value of a speed and he/she may directly label it as a relative value or escaping speed according to local place; because his mechanical/local habits are dominant.

Einstein and others (almost everyone) had this attitude.They had accepted/labeled the all measured value of any speed as escaping speed from local place.

(*) Besides, experimentalist always interprets the results according to his initial intention.

If we intent to measure universal velocity of the light, we would use same measuring experiment (double paths, uninterrupted light, mirrors...) and at this time we would label/call the result by coding "universal velocity of light. And this option would be correct according to absolute reality.

Intrinsically, we can measure merely universal velocity of the light (according to most external frame/ space/LCS: light coordinate system).

Experimental evidence of this determination: The measured light's velocity values are isotropic (the same for every directions)

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 01-30-2018 at 10:33 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

Mr. Rybczyk has internalized about flaws of the theory SR and shared serious/scientific arguments. Also me and some ones has worked about same subject by some different arguments. It can be indicated that this theory is wrong to Z from A.

Intrinsically, If a student has cognitive innocence, he can find a flaw of SR at first reading:

The theory claims that time dilation (deformation of dimention) will be realized because of the fixity of light's velocity according to a moving body. The same theory says that a deformation is not realized because of perpendicular light's projection/drop line.

Now, how do two tempos work at a/same clock simultaneously? And infinite number of tempos for other directions ?

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 01-31-2018 at 04:19 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

As known Copernicus had discovered that the World turns around the Sun. This turning is orbital rotation. Whereas, Galilei's claim was axial rotation. People had an opinion/determination that the Sun turns around the World (this dogma was experimental based; the reason of this dogma is Earth's axial rotation). Galilei had canceled this dogma.

The essence of Galilei event (or this dogma) is to give reference role to a relative object. We don't mistake for the relation the World and Moon; because the reference and relative roles are fitted/correct.

If a relativity relation will set between two objects, reference role must be give to the object that has higher capacity (If a co-reference frame is possible, this option must be preferred). To assign a local or a sub object (according to hierarcical ranking) as reference frame can cause wrong perception.

Here, the reason of SR's failure (to assign a weakest object/candidate as a reference frame) . We must consider most external frame for light kinematics's analyses.

Energy and light have highest universal qualities and coverage capacity.Everything can be explained by energy concept.

If a relation is wanted to set for the light and a moving body/source. The light deserves the reference role. Naturally, to use the light as a reference frame seems a difficulty. Nature never care this difficulty.

However, we can assign the outer space or Light Coordinate System (LCS) as co-reference frame. Practically, in theoretical analyses we can use a sheet of paper instead of LCS.

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 02-01-2018 at 03:24 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

If a relativity relation will set between two objects, reference role must be give to the object that has higher capacity (If a co-reference frame is possible, this option must be preferred). To assign a local or a sub object (according to hierarcical ranking) as reference frame can cause wrong perception.

Here, the reason of SR's failure (to assign a weakest object/candidate as a reference frame) . We must consider most external frame for light kinematics's analyses.(*)

However, we can assign the outer space or Light Coordinate System (LCS) as co-reference frame. Practically, for theoretical analyses we can use a sheet of paper as LCS.

(*)This is a methodological principle or fifth dimension for light kinematics. Probably, Einstein and others had ignored this requirement.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

In physics experiments, the experimenter has tendency to interpret the result in the direction of initial intention.

However, the same experiment may support different or yet unimagined hypotheses; (for example: the measurement of light velocity gives the same result everywhere; and this result is still accepted as the meaning of escaping speed from its source or genuine relative speed according to its source or local place).

Whereas the same experiment also supports a different hypothesis like that "We can always measure the universal velocity of light speed". This new hypothesis has strong evidence; because the measurements for every direction/source/position give the same value.

We cannot measure the local relative velocity of light by using the present/specific measuring method (mirrored double path, uninterrapted photons, etc.).

We should be able to clarify this human flaw and create protocols .

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 02-15-2018 at 04:53 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

The Earth has the rotational speed at equator about 1667 km/hour (0.46 km/sec).

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html )

The accuracy commitments do not apply to GPS devices, but rather to the signals transmitted in space. For example, the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time. ( http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/ )

So, what is the conclusion? Is the GPS relativity correction sufficient for endorsement the theory?

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

A mistake may be caught your attention: They had used 98 % c for the velocity of natural muons.

Whereas, ıt must be the difference with the velocity of laboratory muon; because laboratory muon is the comparison material *; When we consider the speed of laboratory muon we cannot find significant value of the velocity to support SR.

Why can they ignore this reality in relevant scientific articles?

* Standard substance is laboratory muon's lifetime.

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 02-20-2018 at 05:33 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

How is the path of the light in a moving train? (Please look at the s path.jpg)

Energy is the origin of everything in universe. Light is also a universal phenomenon and a derivative form of energy. Naturally, we may be asymmetric position about solving the properties of the light. In other words, we can say that the light ridicules on our minds.

Einstein and the others worked heroically or as Don Quichotte . But while the contradictious inferences must be a signal of incoherence, on the contrary the theory has become idol.

Analyzing the trace/path of light emitted from the base within a moving train is a good example of how both the speculative relativity theory flaws and both light kinematics and human intelligence work in the presence of low resolution.

This analysis should be performed in at least five dimensions. Methodology and hard discipline should be applied. Otherwise we will get fantastic results like special relativity theory.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

Re: Football game opposes Einstein

Football game opposes Einstein

When watching the world cup matches, to understand the key/main mistake of SR may be simplier. We can consider the motion relationship of a player and ball as a light source and a photon motion relationship.

In special relativity, the light source or moving body has uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path) for inertial frame role; Our football player may run uniformly too.

In special relativity, the distance between the photon and the source increases with the speed of c, that means the velocity of the photon is relative value according to source or moving body. SR considers the measured value of light’s velocity as a relative value to the source; Similar mentality labels the ball speed according to the player. If the ball speed is relative to the player, the distance between the ball and the player increases with the ball's speed (we allow the player to have an inert frame assuming uniform movement).

So, the time dilation and length contraction must be realized in football game because of SR mentality. But not. Even, there's no mental confusion.

Because the world or the ground is a common reference frame for player and ball. To analyze the motions of player and the ball is possible by classical methods; movement parameters are already adapted according to the same frame/ground.

WE HAVE A GOLD STANDARD: USING A CO- REFERENCE FRAMEWORK IN MOTION ANALYZES. The relativity method has to give the same results.

Special theory of relativity ignores this principle. Or SR is also the victim of an illusion. The devil is right here: do not prioritise to use a co-reference frame for light kinematics analyses.

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 07-08-2018 at 09:49 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

S. Hawking had said that “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

However/in my opinion, nature scientists also miss the inferences of philosophy and cognitive evolution. At first the concept of “managing mental references (*)” is neglected commonly (this are has not academic/formal principles yet; there are disorderliness and randomness). Another point, benefits are aimed instead of searching essence/reality (**). Another point is “relational integrity/holism” or big picture (***). Relativity method is valid; when the results are verified by main method (analyzing upon a co-reference frame for equivalence of factors/parameters) (****).

Fitzgerald contraction is a cleverly prophecy to revive the aether hypothesis. Karl Popper had written a big book about falsifiability for prophecies; however, he confuted himself by praising the theory SR . SR had been derivated to support a prophecy; its motivation was to verify Fitzgerald contraction for perhaps Nobel prize (**). If its target would be to analyze space-time or to improve light kinematics, it requires considering/analyzing “the finite/limited value of light’s velocity” that is the more effective/primary factor (*) for space-time illusion or light kinematics. Besides, SR had neglected methodological requirements; for example, it analyzed the motion of photon and its source for merely the direction + x. Whereas, the inferences must/would be proved for opposite positions (so, while the photon travels to the direction + x; the source may go to the direction – x; or inverse status). SR isolated the photon and its source and did not realize superpose step (***).

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.

If we analyze the burning event without "oxidation" factor; we may find a theory like Sthal's "Phologiston theory" that phologiston has negative weight.

If we analyze light kinematics without that factors "the types of relativity", "sequential scale of relative and reference frames", "co-reference system for light and its source or an observer "; we may discover a theory like "Special theory of relativity"that has some fantastic inferences.

Last edited by Ersanozgen; 07-13-2019 at 11:33 AM.

My submissions are from my book (Pseudo Science/Sahte Bilim) and my published articles. Please indicate for citation.